RE: Always using let*

[Drew Adams]

> > In sum: If I use `let*' then look for a binding dependency.
> >         If I use `let'  then don't bother to look for one.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Some cases are intermediate.  If I have several variables with "enough"
> binding dependency, I use "let*".
> 
> But, quite often, I have several independent variable, except one or
> two. So, I would use "let" rather than "let*", but don't bind these
> variables and then use "setq" in the body of the let:
>
> (let ((a (val-for-a))
>       (b (val-for-b))
>       ...
>       x y) ; depend on a b
>    (setq x (val-for-x a b))
>    (setq y (val-for-y a b))
>    ...)

Yup.  Me too.  Especially if any processing needs to be done
after the bindings and before the assignments (setq).